and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

“Overtime, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five days service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.”

It is hard to believe that the long experience of Olympic Foods will enable them to minimize costs and thus maximize profits, since the assumption based on which that conclusion is made is incredible and supported by a false example. The vagueness and lack of supportive evidences have made the argument sounds unconvincing and invalid. Firstly, the author assumes that experienced organizations has lower costs of processing because they become more efficient by learning how to do things better. This is not always the case when there are many factors attributed to those costs, so it even costs organizations more as they advance their process. To illustrate, as the years gain, an organization would know to reduce several processing steps and make use of wasted materials in order to save a few costs. However it does not constitute much to the product’s price in the context that the inputs’ price is inflated and the organization would invest on new technologies to expand their production and increase product quality. There is no way that installing new advanced machines is cheap thus the organization would even incur more costs which leads to higher product price. In reality, the prices of many products are increasingly rise along with time due to the reason above. For example, the price of milk was 10 cents per a little box when I was a ten years old child, but it is 30 cents for a same size box now, triple as the previous price after thirteen years. Thus developing does not mean the costs are lower.

Secondly, the example is even counter-evidence to the argument’s assumption of lowering the costs as more years added because the author did not make a correct logical reasoning. Though the price of a 3-by-5-inch print is 20 cents in 1984 but it is for only one service day. That means it costs 100 cents for 5 five days service so it costs even more 50 cents than in 1970 when the price was only 50 cents for five days service. Therefore the price of printing service, in fact, increases along with time. The author also did not specify particularly who that print company is so the evidence is not useful.

Otherwise, the situation of this argument still can be possible if the author uses more persuasive reason and information. The organizations may reduce costs by expanding their production and producing more goods based on their exist resources. The longer period they engage in business activity, they collect more profits and use them to reinvest on opening more plants and buying more machines to produce in a larger scale. The economic principle suggests that the cost per product will be cheaper as the production scale increases until the breakeven point. For instance, although the price of milk in my previous example may rise much higher, it may due to the inflation and the overall cost per product might have decreased according to the larger scope of the national milk company.

Finally, the conclusion is weak because it has not been propped up at all by its premise and example. However it would be convincible if being provided with other reasons, more and better illustrations.

It tooks me several hours to finish this one and everything still seems to be a chaos. I will pratise more and hard with your comments and supports. I have only more than 20 days left until the exam day, in a very haste so I appreciate your help very much!

This essay unfortunately gets a 3. There are a few major issues--hopefully, easy to resolve!--that means that the GMAT would consider your essay inadequate.

First, your second paragraph reads too much like an issue essay. You talk in general terms about processing costs, defending your own position. That is not consistent with the task at hand. You are not supposed to present your own thoughts on whether Olympic can succeed! You just need to analyze the argument presented by the author. Your first paragraph should have presented specific differences between food processing and photo processing that might make the comparison invalid. Facts about food alone aren't sufficient.

Second, paragraph three is poorly reasoned. You interpreted "photo service" as 5 days or one day of actual service. But does that really make any sense? The only "service" photo shops were offering was the printing! A faster, shorter service is strictly more efficient--per day cost is irrelevant to this argument.

With practice, you'll get better at analyzing the content of the prompts, and responding to them according the the instructions for this essay. Keep it up, and I look forward to reading your next effort.

Thank you so much Mr. Eli for your considerate comment. It is very helpful!

This is the first time I get to know the analysis of argument essay type so the line between issue essay and argument essay is still vague to me. But thanks to your analysis, and by reading more prompts like you recommended, I gradually know how to fix my mistakes and improve my reasoning and writing.

Following is my second effort. Hopefully it sounds better than the first one

The following appeared in an announcement issued by the publisher of The Mercury, a weekly newspaper.“Since a competing lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle, was started five years ago, The Mercury’s circulation has declined by 10,000 readers. The best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle, at least until circulation increases to former levels. The increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper.”Discuss how well reasoned... etc.

Citing the fact that The Mercury’s circulation has declined by 10,000 readers in coincide with the launch of The Bugle as a competing lower-priced newspaper five years ago, the author argues that The Mercury will get more readers by reducing its price below that of The Bugle, at least until circulation increases to former levels. Drawn from this conclusion is the expectation that The Mercury will attract more business advertisements in the paper by the increased circulation. The argument is unconvincing for a couple of reasons.

Firstly the argument assumes that the decline in The Mercury’s circulation is due to its higher price than The Bugle. By assuming this way, the publisher considers price as the only factor affecting the circulation’s reduction. It is a failure in counting others factors that may have greater influence in readers’ decision such as the quality of news’ content, exterior design or publisher’s distribution positions. By lacking a comprehensive analysis, it is a shortcoming to hastily blame the reduction in The Mercury’s circulation on its high price.

Secondly, the argument predicts that the circulation will increase as The Mercury reduces its price below that of The Bugle's. This prediction is unfounded since there is no evidence to prove it. The case of The Bugle during the past five years did not present that a large part of The Bugle’s readers bought newspaper because it has lower price than The Mercury’s. The argument only points out the decrease number of The Mercury’s circulation since the launch of The Bugle’s without a clear reason. Thus unless the publisher can demonstrate a negative relationship between the increase and decrease of two newspapers’ circulation based on price factor by statistics, there is not likely for an increase of The Mercury’s circulation by lowering its price less than The Bugle’s.

In conclusion this is a weak argument since its first assumption is not worth for consideration from the beginning without a full analysis or supported evidences. Moreover, the rosy expectation of the publisher following the assumption is invalidated by the same mistake. To make the recommendation more convincing, the publisher should add more information to assert the affection of price and the negative relationship in price of two newspapers.

Thank you so much Mr. Eli for your considerate comment. It is very helpful!

This is the first time I get to know the analysis of argument essay type so the line between issue essay and argument essay is still vague to me. But thanks to your analysis, and by reading more prompts like you recommended, I gradually know how to fix my mistakes and improve my reasoning and writing.

Following is my second effort. Hopefully it sounds better than the first one

The following appeared in an announcement issued by the publisher of The Mercury, a weekly newspaper.“Since a competing lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle, was started five years ago, The Mercury’s circulation has declined by 10,000 readers. The best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle, at least until circulation increases to former levels. The increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper.”Discuss how well reasoned... etc.

Citing the fact that The Mercury’s circulation has declined by 10,000 readers in coincide with the launch of The Bugle as a competing lower-priced newspaper five years ago, the author argues that The Mercury will get more readers by reducing its price below that of The Bugle, at least until circulation increases to former levels. Drawn from this conclusion is the expectation that The Mercury will attract more business advertisements in the paper by the increased circulation. The argument is unconvincing for a couple of reasons.

Firstly the argument assumes that the decline in The Mercury’s circulation is due to its higher price than The Bugle. By assuming this way, the publisher considers price as the only factor affecting the circulation’s reduction. It is a failure in counting others factors that may have greater influence in readers’ decision such as the quality of news’ content, exterior design or publisher’s distribution positions. By lacking a comprehensive analysis, it is a shortcoming to hastily blame the reduction in The Mercury’s circulation on its high price.

Secondly, the argument predicts that the circulation will increase as The Mercury reduces its price below that of The Bugle's. This prediction is unfounded since there is no evidence to prove it. The case of The Bugle during the past five years did not present that a large part of The Bugle’s readers bought newspaper because it has lower price than The Mercury’s. The argument only points out the decrease number of The Mercury’s circulation since the launch of The Bugle’s without a clear reason. Thus unless the publisher can demonstrate a negative relationship between the increase and decrease of two newspapers’ circulation based on price factor by statistics, there is not likely for an increase of The Mercury’s circulation by lowering its price less than The Bugle’s.

In conclusion this is a weak argument since its first assumption is not worth for consideration from the beginning without a full analysis or supported evidences. Moreover, the rosy expectation of the publisher following the assumption is invalidated by the same mistake. To make the recommendation more convincing, the publisher should add more information to assert the affection of price and the negative relationship in price of two newspapers.

HI Sunny,

This is better--it gets a 4. Your point was much more appropriate--who says lowering the price will make a difference? However, you repeat that point twice--your second and third paragraphs weren't well distinguished, and appeared to repeat more-or-less the same information!

For this essay, I would have started by pointed out the lack of causal relationship between the Mercury and the Bugle. What else could cause a decline in Mercury readership? I'd cite possibilities such as the internet, demographic changes, and the existence of a third paper.

Then, I'd move on to the pricing issue. Even if it is established that the Bugle is directly stealing the Mercury's readers, who's to say the price is the deciding factor? The Bugle might have more celebrity news, more advertisements, more articles, better distribution venues. Price alone may not tell the whole story.

Good improvement--keep working, and it will get better! _________________

This is better--it gets a 4. Your point was much more appropriate--who says lowering the price will make a difference? However, you repeat that point twice--your second and third paragraphs weren't well distinguished, and appeared to repeat more-or-less the same information!

For this essay, I would have started by pointed out the lack of causal relationship between the Mercury and the Bugle. What else could cause a decline in Mercury readership? I'd cite possibilities such as the internet, demographic changes, and the existence of a third paper.

Then, I'd move on to the pricing issue. Even if it is established that the Bugle is directly stealing the Mercury's readers, who's to say the price is the deciding factor? The Bugle might have more celebrity news, more advertisements, more articles, better distribution venues. Price alone may not tell the whole story.

Good improvement--keep working, and it will get better!

Thank you! Now I see my repetition. Actually once they have an inverse relationship in price, the publisher can absolutely claim such an expectation of increased circulation. But the counter example I offered in the second paragraph even couldn't help the argument to figure out whether there is a relationship, not to mention an inverse relationship in price.

Basically my thoughts are still confusing. I will work more on identifying reasoning streams underlying arguments to have more complete essays.

I'm working on other parts of Gmat so I will come back to essay writing a bit later. Thank you very much, Mr. Eli! I greatly appreciate your help.

This is better--it gets a 4. Your point was much more appropriate--who says lowering the price will make a difference? However, you repeat that point twice--your second and third paragraphs weren't well distinguished, and appeared to repeat more-or-less the same information!

For this essay, I would have started by pointed out the lack of causal relationship between the Mercury and the Bugle. What else could cause a decline in Mercury readership? I'd cite possibilities such as the internet, demographic changes, and the existence of a third paper.

Then, I'd move on to the pricing issue. Even if it is established that the Bugle is directly stealing the Mercury's readers, who's to say the price is the deciding factor? The Bugle might have more celebrity news, more advertisements, more articles, better distribution venues. Price alone may not tell the whole story.

Good improvement--keep working, and it will get better!

Thank you! Now I see my repetition. Actually once they have an inverse relationship in price, the publisher can absolutely claim such an expectation of increased circulation. But the counter example I offered in the second paragraph even couldn't help the argument to figure out whether there is a relationship, not to mention an inverse relationship in price.

Basically my thoughts are still confusing. I will work more on identifying reasoning streams underlying arguments to have more complete essays.

I'm working on other parts of Gmat so I will come back to essay writing a bit later. Thank you very much, Mr. Eli! I greatly appreciate your help.

Stick with it--I'm glad I was able to help! You've already made the most important jump, which is from an "unsatisfactory" 3 to a "satisfactory" 4. Of course, the higher your score, the better, so shoot for a 6! _________________

I come back with another essay which is written under time pressure. I found it extremely hard to finish an essay with three body paragraphs in only 30 minutes so I ended up again with only two body paragraphs and a cursory conclusion.

I hope you can help me to evaluate this one so I can finalize a template for my essays.

The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine devoted to regional life.“Corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location. Even in the recent recession, Helios’s unemployment rate was lower than the regional average. It is the industrial center of the region, and historically it has provided more than its share of the region’s manufacturing jobs. In addition, Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies.”

The journalist suggests Helios for corporations who are seeking new business opportunities or a new location. He/she underlies Helios’ ability of maintaining good employment for both its region and other regions by being the industrial center of the region and providing manufacturing jobs. His suggestion is finally supported by a promising economic expansion plan of Helios. I am partially convinced by the argument; however, it needs to improve some points in evidence to actually become an useful recommendation for corporations.

The argument firstly mentioned about Helios’ lower unemployment rate than the regional average as an advantage of Helios that investors should consider. However, that does not ensure a non-high unemployment rate of Helios unless the journalist can list out some statistics. That Helios “historically provided more than its share of region’s manufacturing jobs” because it is the regionally industrial center could also not indicate an overall good employment rate. The journalist seems to overlook other areas and participants of employment market. Is employment healthy when people whose mainly work in agriculture cannot find a job and have to move to other region?

Otherwise, employment rate may not virtually what corporations care about when looking to a city for business opportunities. The argument sounds more rational when referring to Helios’ plan of economic base expansion by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies. Though it restraints on some type of technology development companies, it provides investors with Helios’ prospect of investment facilitation and support policies. Nevertheless, the author may offer other potential aspects of an industrial center of a region such as good infrastructures, an abundant source of labor or superior technologies for manufacturers.

The argument needs to provide more information to fill in the gaps and meet corporations’ demand of studying about Helios. Its current evidences are not strong enough to catch their attention or even to take Helios into consideration of a new location for business.

I come back with another essay which is written under time pressure. I found it extremely hard to finish an essay with three body paragraphs in only 30 minutes so I ended up again with only two body paragraphs and a cursory conclusion.

I hope you can help me to evaluate this one so I can finalize a template for my essays.

The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine devoted to regional life.“Corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location. Even in the recent recession, Helios’s unemployment rate was lower than the regional average. It is the industrial center of the region, and historically it has provided more than its share of the region’s manufacturing jobs. In addition, Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies.”

The journalist suggests Helios for corporations who are seeking new business opportunities or a new location. He/she underlies Helios’ ability of maintaining good employment for both its region and other regions by being the industrial center of the region and providing manufacturing jobs. His suggestion is finally supported by a promising economic expansion plan of Helios. I am partially convinced by the argument; however, it needs to improve some points in evidence to actually become an useful recommendation for corporations.

The argument firstly mentioned about Helios’ lower unemployment rate than the regional average as an advantage of Helios that investors should consider. However, that does not ensure a non-high unemployment rate of Helios unless the journalist can list out some statistics. That Helios “historically provided more than its share of region’s manufacturing jobs” because it is the regionally industrial center could also not indicate an overall good employment rate. The journalist seems to overlook other areas and participants of employment market. Is employment healthy when people whose mainly work in agriculture cannot find a job and have to move to other region?

Otherwise, employment rate may not virtually what corporations care about when looking to a city for business opportunities. The argument sounds more rational when referring to Helios’ plan of economic base expansion by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies. Though it restraints on some type of technology development companies, it provides investors with Helios’ prospect of investment facilitation and support policies. Nevertheless, the author may offer other potential aspects of an industrial center of a region such as good infrastructures, an abundant source of labor or superior technologies for manufacturers.

The argument needs to provide more information to fill in the gaps and meet corporations’ demand of studying about Helios. Its current evidences are not strong enough to catch their attention or even to take Helios into consideration of a new location for business.

This is a 4 again, thanks to it's organization and writing. however, the time cruch showed! The logic wasn't as solid as the previous essay. In particular, you barely scratched the surface of the weakness of the statement that helios is "trying to attract" businesses. Still, keep up the good work!